When you attack with a creature equipped with Throwing Knife, the trigger requires you to choose a target before you choose to sacrifice the Knife, correct?
i think you can sacrifice it without it having a target
"you may sacrifice it." note the end of the sentence there
"if you do ... target ..." so having a target is optional
i think you can sacrifice it without it having a target
"you may sacrifice it." note the end of the sentence there
"if you do ... target ..." so having a target is optional
This is incorrect. The "if you do" is a clause that instructs a player to do something based on whether or not the choice was made on resolution. Since the targets for abilities are chosen as they are put onto the stack and at no other time (without externalities), if the target was optional until you chose to sacrifice the Knife, there would be no opportunity for you to select a target for the ability.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
So you would be able to kill Phantasmal Bear et al without throwing it, right?
Yep, that's right. Threaten a bear illusion with a throwing knife and it'll go away.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
i don't see how that is correct. if you do not sacrifice the knife, how is there an opportunity to target the bear?
One of the first parts of putting an ability on the stack is to choose targets for it. After the rest of this process, the ability will be on the stack targeting the Phantasmal Bear. Phantasmal Bear's ability will then trigger and be put on top of the Throwing Knife's ability, which means the Bear will be sacrificed before the Knife's ability resolves.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
i don't see how that is correct. if you do not sacrifice the knife, how is there an opportunity to target the bear?
The reason why it works this way is that the whole thing is one ability. Even though the ability may or may not end up doing anything to the target, based on what choices are made during its resolution, you still need to choose targets for a triggered ability when you put it onto the stack.
For it to work the way you are expecting, it would have to be worded as two separate triggered abilities, such as:
Whenever equipped creature attacks, you may sacrifice Throwing Knife.
When you sacrifice Throwing Knife, it deals 2 damage to target creature or player.
This would of course have the added effect that the second part would trigger even if you sacrificed it for an unrelated reason.
just asked a judge and apparently throwing knife does target without having to sacrifice. that is one of the most lame fails of rulings, ive seen (lately).
just asked a judge and apparently throwing knife does target without having to sacrifice. that is one of the most lame fails of rulings, ive seen (lately).
You probably just haven't encountered these situations too many times, so you may not be familiar with what happens. The same thing happens with targeted spells and their interaction with heroic.
For the record, it's rude to resort to a judge when there have already been several answers given that all detail the same thing. A person doesn't have to be a judge to give a correct answer to a rules question.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
Respectfully, I disagree. It's never wrong to ask a judge a sincere question about how the game works.
That said, Thought Criminal's answer was correct, as was his assertion that you don't need to be a judge to know the rules. If, however, you know the rules, consider becoming a judge!
To cast a spell or activate an ability, do these things:
Announce the spell or ability and put it on the stack
Choose modes, additional or alternative casting costs, etc.
Pick your targets
Divide anything that needs dividing between targets (like damage on a fireball with multiple targets)
Calculate costs
Pay costs
Once all that has happened, the spell or ability is on the stack and will have its effect. The effect of throwing knife is "you may sacrifice Throwing Knife. If you do, Throwing Knife deals 2 damage to target creature or player," and this ability triggers (you will do all that stuff up there to put it on the stack) "Whenever equipped creature attacks."
For the record, it's rude to resort to a judge when there have already been several answers given that all detail the same thing. A person doesn't have to be a judge to give a correct answer to a rules question.
when i posted my original comment, i then immediately went to another tab and found the answer i was looking for. by the time i came back and posted my second comment (claiming i was wrong) it was ~4 minutes later. i did not refresh the page so any comments between my two comments, were unknown to me. for what it's worth, a second opinion on a complicated matter is hardly rude. it's being thorough.
The same thing happens with targeted spells and their interaction with heroic.
not exactly. with heroic, spells are the only thing that can cause the trigger. you have to pay the spell's cost before it goes on the stack. there is a similarity in the sense that the targeting causes the trigger, but that wasn't really the topic at hand. the topic at hand was in this case, the ability targets regardless of paying a cost.
For the record, it's rude to resort to a judge when there have already been several answers given that all detail the same thing. A person doesn't have to be a judge to give a correct answer to a rules question.
when i posted my original comment, i then immediately went to another tab and found the answer i was looking for. by the time i came back and posted my second comment (claiming i was wrong) it was ~4 minutes later. i did not refresh the page so any comments between my two comments, were unknown to me. for what it's worth, a second opinion on a complicated matter is hardly rude. it's being thorough.
The same thing happens with targeted spells and their interaction with heroic.
I completely agree with you. First of all, it is not rude to want to ask a judge to verify that what you are seeing on the forums is accurate. You have no idea if what they have said is correct, so it doesn't hurt to go to another source that you trust. For some people that may be a judge. Now, just remember something though. If you don't see a signature indicating someone is a judge, it doesn't mean they are not judges. Some ppl just don't have that in their signature, although most do. Also, if you get multiple people saying the same thing and you come back and say, "Can we get an OFFICIAL wording on this from a judge," that is usually considered to be rude. However, what you did is not, in my estimation
not exactly. with heroic, spells are the only thing that can cause the trigger. you have to pay the spell's cost before it goes on the stack. there is a similarity in the sense that the targeting causes the trigger, but that wasn't really the topic at hand. the topic at hand was in this case, the ability targets regardless of paying a cost.
I'd just like to add that while paying the costs is the last part of casting a spell (601.2g), what is confusing and often creates this misunderstanding are the words "if you do" which are somewhat misleading in context and easy to misinterpret.
I personally learned about this ruling when I was told that lorthos, the tidemaker picks targets upon attacking even if the controller chooses not to (or doesn't even have the means to) pay 8, and to be honest, I've always wondered why such cards aren't worded differently for clarification purposes in order to make it easier for players (especially new ones).
For example, couldn't they be worded/errataed like this:
Whenever Lorthos, the Tidemaker attacks, target up to eight permanents. If you pay {8}, tap those permanents and they don't untap during their controllers' next untap steps.
...instead of like this? (which is what we currently have):
Whenever Lorthos, the Tidemaker attacks, you may pay {8}. If you do, tap up to eight target permanents. Those permanents don't untap during their controllers' next untap steps.
In the case of throwing knife, the text could have been written as:
Equipped creature gets +2/+0. Whenever equipped creature attacks, target a creature or player, and you may sacrifice Throwing Knife. If you do sacrifice Throwing Knife, it deals 2 damage to that creature or player.
So I'm curious to know...
Is there any particular reason from a rules perspective why we don't have wording like this, if for no other reason than so the reader doesn't inaccurately misinterpret that targeting is contingent on whether or not they're paying the cost?
Anyhow, the best I can come up with myself is a game in the top 8 of a PTQ back during Urza block in which we were starting game 3 with time already expired, so the tiebreaker rule was that whoever had more life after 3 turns would win. And I lost to... healing salve.
In magic-ese, "target" is an article or an adjective, not a verb, so those wordings don't make sense. They would also give newbies the wrong impression about how targets work, by suggesting that targets are chosen only when that part of the text is executed. The existing wordings, on the other hand, make sense, are perfectly clear given a basic understanding of the rules, and are not excessively wordy.
I think you are confused about which rules apply here. The abilities in question are neither activated abilities nor spells. They are triggered abilities, and the relevant rule is 117.12, as cited by ToddB. The decision whether to pay the cost is made as the ability resolves.
just asked a judge and apparently throwing knife does target without having to sacrifice. that is one of the most lame fails of rulings, ive seen (lately).
One way to look at it is that with may abilities you don't have to choose wether to do it or not until the ability resolves. And for it to get put on the stack and resolve, in this case, it needs a legal target.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote me for replies.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
You choose to sacrifice the Throwing Knife or not, at the resolution. So if the opponent wanted to save his creature (e.g. with Titanic Growth), he'd had to do that before he knows wether the controller of the Throwing Knife will sacrifice it or not. And since the sacrifice is part of the resolution; there's no opportunity for the opponent to respond between the time the knife is sacrificed and the 2 damage are dealt. Is this correct?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
"you may sacrifice it." note the end of the sentence there
"if you do ... target ..." so having a target is optional
This is incorrect. The "if you do" is a clause that instructs a player to do something based on whether or not the choice was made on resolution. Since the targets for abilities are chosen as they are put onto the stack and at no other time (without externalities), if the target was optional until you chose to sacrifice the Knife, there would be no opportunity for you to select a target for the ability.
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format
Minimum deck size: 60
Maximum number of identical cards: 4
Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
Yep, that's right. Threaten a bear illusion with a throwing knife and it'll go away.
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format
Minimum deck size: 60
Maximum number of identical cards: 4
Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
One of the first parts of putting an ability on the stack is to choose targets for it. After the rest of this process, the ability will be on the stack targeting the Phantasmal Bear. Phantasmal Bear's ability will then trigger and be put on top of the Throwing Knife's ability, which means the Bear will be sacrificed before the Knife's ability resolves.
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format
Minimum deck size: 60
Maximum number of identical cards: 4
Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
For it to work the way you are expecting, it would have to be worded as two separate triggered abilities, such as:
Whenever equipped creature attacks, you may sacrifice Throwing Knife.
When you sacrifice Throwing Knife, it deals 2 damage to target creature or player.
This would of course have the added effect that the second part would trigger even if you sacrificed it for an unrelated reason.
You probably just haven't encountered these situations too many times, so you may not be familiar with what happens. The same thing happens with targeted spells and their interaction with heroic.
For the record, it's rude to resort to a judge when there have already been several answers given that all detail the same thing. A person doesn't have to be a judge to give a correct answer to a rules question.
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format
Minimum deck size: 60
Maximum number of identical cards: 4
Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
Respectfully, I disagree. It's never wrong to ask a judge a sincere question about how the game works.
That said, Thought Criminal's answer was correct, as was his assertion that you don't need to be a judge to know the rules. If, however, you know the rules, consider becoming a judge!
To cast a spell or activate an ability, do these things:
http://mtgsalvation.gamepedia.com/Casting_spells
Choose modes, additional or alternative casting costs, etc.
Pick your targets
Divide anything that needs dividing between targets (like damage on a fireball with multiple targets)
Calculate costs
Pay costs
Once all that has happened, the spell or ability is on the stack and will have its effect. The effect of throwing knife is "you may sacrifice Throwing Knife. If you do, Throwing Knife deals 2 damage to target creature or player," and this ability triggers (you will do all that stuff up there to put it on the stack) "Whenever equipped creature attacks."
when i posted my original comment, i then immediately went to another tab and found the answer i was looking for. by the time i came back and posted my second comment (claiming i was wrong) it was ~4 minutes later. i did not refresh the page so any comments between my two comments, were unknown to me. for what it's worth, a second opinion on a complicated matter is hardly rude. it's being thorough.
not exactly. with heroic, spells are the only thing that can cause the trigger. you have to pay the spell's cost before it goes on the stack. there is a similarity in the sense that the targeting causes the trigger, but that wasn't really the topic at hand. the topic at hand was in this case, the ability targets regardless of paying a cost.
New to Commander? Read the Above article.
I personally learned about this ruling when I was told that lorthos, the tidemaker picks targets upon attacking even if the controller chooses not to (or doesn't even have the means to) pay 8, and to be honest, I've always wondered why such cards aren't worded differently for clarification purposes in order to make it easier for players (especially new ones).
For example, couldn't they be worded/errataed like this:
Whenever Lorthos, the Tidemaker attacks, target up to eight permanents. If you pay {8}, tap those permanents and they don't untap during their controllers' next untap steps.
...instead of like this? (which is what we currently have):
Whenever Lorthos, the Tidemaker attacks, you may pay {8}. If you do, tap up to eight target permanents. Those permanents don't untap during their controllers' next untap steps.
In the case of throwing knife, the text could have been written as:
Equipped creature gets +2/+0. Whenever equipped creature attacks, target a creature or player, and you may sacrifice Throwing Knife. If you do sacrifice Throwing Knife, it deals 2 damage to that creature or player.
So I'm curious to know...
Is there any particular reason from a rules perspective why we don't have wording like this, if for no other reason than so the reader doesn't inaccurately misinterpret that targeting is contingent on whether or not they're paying the cost?
I think you are confused about which rules apply here. The abilities in question are neither activated abilities nor spells. They are triggered abilities, and the relevant rule is 117.12, as cited by ToddB. The decision whether to pay the cost is made as the ability resolves.
One way to look at it is that with may abilities you don't have to choose wether to do it or not until the ability resolves. And for it to get put on the stack and resolve, in this case, it needs a legal target.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
You choose to sacrifice the Throwing Knife or not, at the resolution. So if the opponent wanted to save his creature (e.g. with Titanic Growth), he'd had to do that before he knows wether the controller of the Throwing Knife will sacrifice it or not. And since the sacrifice is part of the resolution; there's no opportunity for the opponent to respond between the time the knife is sacrificed and the 2 damage are dealt. Is this correct?